Talk:The Real Lincoln
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] critical responses
We need to include some critical responses to The Real Lincoln. Most historians either did not take the book seriously, or they severely lambasted it. By not including critical responses, we violate NPOV. Firebug 03:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually Firebug, the NPOV style guide says the solution to what you describe is not to dismiss an article as POV propaganda but to add sourced material to it and balance it. I appreciate your additions and have expanded upon them. It is generally better to quote passages from critics though rather than trying to summarize what they said, so I replaced your SPLC and Masugi descriptions with direct quotes. The Wall Street Journal poll section you added violates WP:NOR as it draws conclusions from a poll that was not specific to DiLorenzo's book and did not have scientific variables in it to account for DiLorenzo's book as a factor between it and the poll before the book was published. Also, statements such as "most historians did not take the book seriously" etc. are also in violation of NPOV, as they express an unsourced opinion based on anonymous experts. A better way to handle it is to quote some of the major critics like Masugi directly. Rangerdude 04:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I have no problems with your edits. Reading over them, I agree that they summarize the situation in a more accurate manner. I tried to find as much information as I could online, but the Google responses for "the real lincoln" seem to be dominated by libertarian sites. Perhaps many of the responses from professional historians are available only in dead-tree format, or behind registration firewalls. Firebug 04:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] DiLorenzo and lewrockwell
DiLorenzo does not write like a historian. His screed at lewrockwell was terribly unprofessional. As Matthew Pinsker states at Presidential Studies Quarterly: "DiLorenzo adopts a posture more suitable to talk radio than historical monographs as he belittles and mischaracterizes most other work in the field." I wouldn't trust any radio talk show host on the right or the left to teach me history. Travb (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Rough Era
Abraham Lincoln was alive at the time when rough people were the commonest ones every place. He was called "the Rail-splitter of the West" because of his physical prowess. His mind was rough, too. While he was the President, people called him "The Autocrat." The book by Mr. DiLorenzo probably reveals some facts which disconcert some people, but those facts have been included in books written by authors who were alive in the 19th century. "Honest Abe" was not a soft, gentle person, nay, he was a man of his time. Superslum 02:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
